The Allahabad High Court while dismissing challenge of tenant against rejection of release application has observed that landlord is best arbiter to decide as to which accommodation would suit him to establish business.

The Court was considering a petition filed by tenants against the Prescribed Authority's decision denying their claim on the rented premises.

The single-bench of Justice Ajit Kumar observed, "Since it has been held that the landlord is best arbitor to decide as to which accommodation would suit him to establish business, the Prescribed Authority will be slow in rejecting the release application only on the ground of alternative accommodation referred to by tenant as available to the landlord because the landlord should always be left to utilize the property the way he wants and just because he has let out a particular portion of his property on rent to a third party inducting it as a tenant, it should not become as irrevocable tenancy forever. A tenant should be at the pleasure of landlord in a sense that as and when the landlord needs the property for his personal use, he will have to release. The court has to just see, whether the need is bonafide one or not."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Vinayak Mithal while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Gaurav Dhama.

The release application for the two shops in question was filed by respondent/ landlord on the ground of personal need to open a shop to carry out motorcycle and scooter repairing works, which he was doing in a premises taken on rent and the landlord of that premises, according to him, had asked him to vacate the premises. The release application was granted by the Prescribed Authority finding the bonafide need to be in existence and comparative hardships there to be in favour of the respondent/ landlord. Said order was unsuccessfully appealed against and hence the order passed by the appellate authority is also under challenge.

The only argument of the Counsel for Petitioner was that the Prescribed Authority had failed to give due consideration to the alternative accommodation available in the form of a third shop which could have been used reasonably to set up the business by landlord, in view the provisions as contained under rule 16(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972. It was submitted further that the court of appeal has also manifestly erred in affirming the order passed by the Prescribed Authority. He argued that the alternative accommodation which was very much available, was a fact that had been deliberately concealed by the landlord while applying for release of the shop in question. Submitting that there was hardly any bonafide need, he averred that the aspect of reasonable suitability of alternative accommodation was not accorded due consideration and the release application came to be allowed only on the ground that there was no other shop available to him believing the statement of the landlord that third shop was a store and further that the landlord being the sole arbitor of his need and requirement, the tenant could not have suggested about the suitability of alternative accommodation to the landlord.

He further strenuously argued that this alternative accommodation and its suitability required to be discussed by the Prescribed Authority while considering the point of comparative hardships and non consideration thereof, according to him, is a manifest error of law and fact in the order of Prescribed Authority granting release.

The Court at the outset observed that there is absolutely no quarrel about principle discussed in the authorities of Supreme Court cited before it that on the point of bonafide need the court will have to consider the other alternative accommodation available to the landlord and it is after giving due consideration there to find out as to whether it is a suitable accommodation or not from the point of view of landlord as to the need set up, that question of bonafide need should answered.

"However, this would depend upon facts of each case because in every case the issue would be as to what kind of alternative accommodation is proposed and how the court takes it to be suitable or not. It may at times also depend on many other factors like the landlord's family is very large one and he needs to settle so many persons of the family to run business and even otherwise where landlord may use a larger area than available one and the suitability of accommodation to run a kind of business which may not be possible in alternative accommodation," the Court observed.

The Court observed that landlord is best arbitor to decide as to which accommodation would suit him to establish business and the court can only decide whether such a need is bonafide or not.

The Petition was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: Zulfikar Ahmad And 7 Others vs. Jahangir Alam (2024:AHC:185522)

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocate Vinayak Mithal

Respondent- Advocate Gaurav Dhama, Advocate Raj Kumar Singh, Advocate Rajat Aren, Advocate Sheetla Sahai Srivastava

Click here to read/ download Order:






Allahabad High CourtJustice Ajit Kumar

Sheetal Joon